View Full Version : Impeachment
Rabid talking point of the Republican minority, AND the media, in the late 90s.
Why is it a bad word now?
Discuss.
Sean of the Thread
03-23-2006, 06:58 PM
Impeachment occurs when impeachment is warranted.
If Congress or any other SINGLE person on the list of many who are authorized to start the proceedings thought there was misconduct requiring impeachment.. they would start the process.
I'm sorry I had to explain that to you.
Ebondale
03-23-2006, 07:05 PM
Blowjobs from interns are grounds for impeachment but not misleading your country or just outright breaking the law.
:rolleyes:
Sean of the Thread
03-23-2006, 07:09 PM
Blowjobs from interns are grounds for impeachment but not misleading your country or just outright breaking the law.
:rolleyes:
Again my above post is clear. If you don't understand it that isn't my problem.
There was more than blowjobs involved as you obviously have a selective memory.
Blowjobs from interns are grounds for impeachment but not misleading your country or just outright breaking the law.
:rolleyes:
President Clinton wasn't impeached for adultery.
The GOP is afraid of Bush being impeached so it can't be that far off base. Here is the email I received from the GOP:
Dear *****,
The word is out. Their position is clear. Last week, Sen. Russ Feingold floated a reckless plan to censure the President, and some Democrat leaders have ecstatically jumped on Feingold's bandwagon.
And, if they gain even more power in November, they won't stop there.
Feingold says that censure actually represents "moderation" and calls the terrorist surveillance program an impeachable offense. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, fails to rule out impeachment if Democrats retake Congress. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin is talking "high crimes and misdemeanors." And 31 House Democrats are calling for a committee to look into impeachment. Their leader? John Conyers, who would become House Judiciary Committee chairman under Democrat control.
The Democrats' plan for 2006? Take the House and Senate, and impeach the President. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want? If your answer is a resounding "NO", I need you to make an urgent contribution to help us win this fight.
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
Democrat leaders' talk of censure and impeachment isn't about the law or the President doing anything wrong. It's about the fact that Democrat leaders don't want America to fight the War on Terror with every tool in our arsenal. Your immediate action will send these reckless Democrats a message and help preserve our Republican majorities.
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
And what happens if we stand on the sidelines, and give the likes of Russ Feingold, John Kerry, and John Conyers control of Congress? Here's what the The Wall Street Journal says: "In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. ... [E]veryone should understand that censure and impeachment are important -- and so far the only -- parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress."
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
The world is watching. Using every tool at our disposal to fight terrorists should not be a partisan issue. Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. Russ Feingold's censure resolution and Democrat talk of impeachment have raised the stakes for 2006. Make your contribution, sign the petition, and help make sure this fight is won.
http://www.GOP.com/WinThisFight/
President Clinton wasn't impeached for adultery.
No he was impeached by Congress for lying about blowjobs.
No he was impeached by Congress for lying about blowjobs.
Under oath.
Ebondale
03-23-2006, 07:26 PM
President Clinton wasn't impeached for adultery.
Twas a joke.
Sean of the Thread
03-23-2006, 07:30 PM
I used my new found terrorist surveillance to decypher your post.
Dear *****, = Dear Douche,
Hmmm
I used my new found terrorist surveillance to decypher your post.
Dear *****, = Dear Douche,
Hmmm
Now if it could just help you spell.
Like spelling is any indication of who is a terrorist or who isn't.
Lets get micro.
Who tries to meet out hate here on these boards? Who blows up nonsensical bullshit?
Thats right!
Seran
03-23-2006, 08:26 PM
Stealing billions of dollars from the American people is an impeachable offense.
LOLOLROFFLELOLZPAFTZZZZTPF.Z...
I was wondering when we would see another thread like this.
Ad nausem, rinse, repeat.
Sean of the Thread
03-23-2006, 08:33 PM
Stealing billions of dollars from the American people is an impeachable offense.
Oh you must mean the Enron cover up?
Sean of the Thread
03-23-2006, 08:36 PM
Now if it could just help you spell.
Or rather for you to understand the English language since nothing was spelled incorrectly in that post.
Or rather for you to understand the English language since nothing was spelled incorrectly in that post.
check again, decipher not decypher.
Teladro
03-23-2006, 08:48 PM
^^
Sean of the Thread
03-23-2006, 09:07 PM
When I did a quick google spellcheck on my original post the following result was returned:
Web definitions for Decypher
Decipherment is the analysis of documents written in ancient languages, where the language is unknown, or knowledge of the language has been lost.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decypher
Like I said.. you guys using wikipedia as a legit source on anything is a joke and I won't be using it to spell check anymore hehehe. That being said decypher seems to be informally accepted. Least I spelled your first name right.
Stealing billions of dollars from the American people is an impeachable offense.
As well as is infringing on their freedoms and using their tax dollars to kill innocent people.
Sean of the Thread
03-23-2006, 09:11 PM
As well as is infringing on their freedoms and using their tax dollars to kill innocent people.
By your definition?
By your definition?
Whats yours?
When I did a quick google spellcheck on my original post the following result was returned:
Web definitions for Decypher
Decipherment is the analysis of documents written in ancient languages, where the language is unknown, or knowledge of the language has been lost.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decypher
Like I said.. you guys using wikipedia as a legit source on anything is a joke and I won't be using it to spell check anymore hehehe. That being said decypher seems to be informally accepted. Least I spelled your first name right.
Sorry no cigar for you, that is what you get for trusting for wikipedia. When it comes to the English language you go to the definitive source The Oxford dictionary.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/decipher?view=uk
even Websters agrees:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=decipher
Sean of the Thread
03-23-2006, 10:07 PM
Sorry no cigar for you, that is what you get for trusting for wikipedia. When it comes to the English language you go to the definitive source The Oxford dictionary.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/decipher?view=uk
even Websters agrees:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=decipher
No shit dipshit.. didn't you read my post?
You liberals are the ones that tout wikipedia as the best source for everything.
No shit dipshit.. didn't you read my post?
You liberals are the ones that tout wikipedia as the best source for everything.
I did and you used wikipedia and it was incorrect, considering how much you slam wikipedia you should have known better than to use it as a source/reference.
I would insult you back but it would be like kicking a puppy.
Sean of the Thread
03-24-2006, 01:14 AM
What is funny is that the only thing you've had a chance to "fuck" with me is a misguided spellcheck which just happened to come from your shitty source on everything liberal.
It was obvious you guys couldn't handle the big boy topic of this thread since I explained it so clearly and as always you ass clowns bring on the off topic herrings. In fact this thread was made BECAUSE of ass clown number one navigating waaaaay off topic in another thread... yet here we are back at square one.
Can you repeat that in American, since most of us have no clue how to speak trailer park?
Sean of the Thread
03-24-2006, 01:24 AM
Can you repeat that in American, since most of us have no clue how to speak trailer park?
Is that the best you can up with you lonely man?
If you don't understand logic, what the hell can I say? You wouldn't understand it anyway.
Ebondale
03-24-2006, 01:27 AM
Can you repeat that in American, since most of us have no clue how to speak trailer park?
*dies laughing*
Warriorbird
03-24-2006, 08:57 AM
The real answer is impeachment occurs when the party who wants to impeach has a Congressional majority. Otherwise it gets swept under the rug by people who will rationalize anything a President does unless he shot someone on national tv. They could probably even rationalize that.
"Yes. I shot Russ Feingold on national tv because he is a terrorist!"
"Certainly Mr. President! Carry on sir!"
Seran
03-24-2006, 09:30 AM
What is the point of giving a factual reply to someone who'se going to refute it anyway? Sometimes I wonder how Bush senior's investments in the Carlyle group are coming about nowadays, or how just how much Cheney stands to make when his vested options with Halliburton are converted into stock.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were found at the beginning of the war, yet when asked about it years later, they claim to have left it "to the Iraqi people" where it promptly dissapeared. Ever watch the movie Three Kings?
ElanthianSiren
03-24-2006, 09:53 AM
Is the Xyelin-bashing/liberal bashing really necessary to make your points, gentlemen?
WB and XTC both said it well, in my opinion. Minority status is why few democrats supported the censure. Scare tactics are nothing new for the majority party, so it doesn't surprise me to see them employing them; in addition, Specter is launching an investigation into Bush's conduct. To support censure in Congress before those findings would be premature, though Specter, (a moderate rep and head of the Judiciary committee), has said if Bush broke the law he will face consequences. Feingold's move was purely jockeying for the dem nom in 2008. The fight to censure/impeach will probably be picked back up again or dropped entirely after the conclusions of Specter's investigation.
The reason nobody's terribly hot to officially broach the subject of impeachment now is they don't have the information necessary to support that kind of move, Backlash. Lying under oath about not spying on americans is much different than lying in address to your entire country. You can't say that Bush was definitely the one who misled the country into war. He would claim he received faulty intelligence. It's just your typical political game playing.
-M
Skirmisher
03-24-2006, 10:00 AM
The real answer is impeachment occurs when the party who wants to impeach has a Congressional majority. Otherwise it gets swept under the rug by people who will rationalize anything a President does unless he shot someone on national tv. They could probably even rationalize that.
"Yes. I shot Russ Feingold on national tv because he is a terrorist!"
"Certainly Mr. President! Carry on sir!"
Ding ding ding
Sean of the Thread
03-24-2006, 10:32 AM
Ding ding ding
Another well thought out contribution from the skirmdog. Par for course.
Is the Xyelin-bashing/liberal bashing really necessary to make your points, gentlemen?
WB and XTC both said it well, in my opinion. Minority status is why few democrats supported the censure. Scare tactics are nothing new for the majority party, so it doesn't surprise me to see them employing them; in addition, Specter is launching an investigation into Bush's conduct. To support censure in Congress before those findings would be premature, though Specter, (a moderate rep and head of the Judiciary committee), has said if Bush broke the law he will face consequences. Feingold's move was purely jockeying for the dem nom in 2008. The fight to censure/impeach will probably be picked back up again or dropped entirely after the conclusions of Specter's investigation.
The reason nobody's terribly hot to officially broach the subject of impeachment now is they don't have the information necessary to support that kind of move, Backlash. Lying under oath about not spying on americans is much different than lying in address to your entire country. You can't say that Bush was definitely the one who misled the country into war. He would claim he received faulty intelligence. It's just your typical political game playing.
-M
The only credible post in this laughable thread, including the previous one made by me helping illustrate said laughability.
Well said ES.
Sean of the Thread
03-24-2006, 10:40 AM
Impeachment occurs when impeachment is warranted.
If Congress or any other SINGLE person on the list of many who are authorized to start the proceedings thought there was misconduct requiring impeachment.. they would start the process.
I'm sorry I had to explain that to you.
This should have been the end of it.
Is the Xyelin-bashing/liberal bashing really necessary to make your points, gentlemen?
WB and XTC both said it well, in my opinion. Minority status is why few democrats supported the censure. Scare tactics are nothing new for the majority party, so it doesn't surprise me to see them employing them; in addition, Specter is launching an investigation into Bush's conduct. To support censure in Congress before those findings would be premature, though Specter, (a moderate rep and head of the Judiciary committee), has said if Bush broke the law he will face consequences. Feingold's move was purely jockeying for the dem nom in 2008. The fight to censure/impeach will probably be picked back up again or dropped entirely after the conclusions of Specter's investigation.
The reason nobody's terribly hot to officially broach the subject of impeachment now is they don't have the information necessary to support that kind of move, Backlash. Lying under oath about not spying on americans is much different than lying in address to your entire country. You can't say that Bush was definitely the one who misled the country into war. He would claim he received faulty intelligence. It's just your typical political game playing.
-M
Actually I said nothing except that the GOP is fearful of censure or impeachment. The only other thing I did was post a letter the GOP (Republicans) emailed me on the matter. I assume that is what you liked?
The point of the thread isn't about whether or not this president should be impeached. Its about people's reaction to the suggestion of impeachment.
Dropping the word gets some very strong reactions from certain people. I have to wonder why when 6 years ago it was the buzzword of capitol hill.
The act of impeachment is not whats buzzworthy, its the reasons behind its application. <insert ES post here stating why the reasons of application are so divisive, and strong>
Sean of the Thread
03-24-2006, 11:41 AM
Doesn't get a strong reaction from me.
Alfster
03-24-2006, 11:55 AM
Ding ding ding
I notice you're really raising the bar here.
Where's Ken Star when you need his ass? Nowhere to be found.
Tea & Strumpets
03-24-2006, 01:27 PM
I think getting blowjobs from interns in the oval office shows that you aren't in the right frame of mind to be running the country, but that's just me.
Hulkein
03-24-2006, 01:33 PM
Backlash and his internetsoapbox...... It's cyclical, I think.
Skirmisher
03-24-2006, 01:55 PM
This should have been the end of it.
That is incorrect.
You also need, as WB posted and I agreed with, the ability to achieve a majority in the legislature which at this point the Democrats do not have. As was noted in another thread even the Republican Party acknowledges this and uses it as a tactic to try to spur republican turnout at the polls.
So no, that should not have been the end of it.
Sean of the Thread
03-24-2006, 06:17 PM
That is incorrect.
You also need, as WB posted and I agreed with, the ability to achieve a majority in the legislature which at this point the Democrats do not have. As was noted in another thread even the Republican Party acknowledges this and uses it as a tactic to try to spur republican turnout at the polls.
So no, that should not have been the end of it.
Wrong.
Backlash and his internetsoapbox...... It's cyclical, I think.
The real purpose of this thread is to desensitize everyone to the idea so that when the time comes no one will be surprised.
But seriously, its just a topic for discussion, debate, and insult.
Seran
03-24-2006, 09:44 PM
Xyelin has a bad habit of ignoring anything resembling a coherent statement in order to tout an already grossly inflated ego. Get off your self, your President is not only a criminal, but also a meglomaniac.
My favorite is Bush's statement at his bill signing ceremony in which he states that he can ignore the new provisions in the Patriot Act that would put an end to his unlimited ability to violate the privacy of any and all American citizens. If you don't think that's true, you go ahead and pull up the text of the bills which enables him to put under surveillence "anyone deemed a possible threat to national security".
Sean of the Thread
03-24-2006, 10:50 PM
Xyelin has a bad habit of ignoring anything resembling a coherent statement in order to tout an already grossly inflated ego.
Feel free to provide examples if your up for the pwning.
Seran
03-24-2006, 11:24 PM
Case in point.
Did you notice there was a second paragraph to my post, or did you simply respond to the non-informative section in order to belittle the remaining content?
Sean of the Thread
03-25-2006, 08:33 AM
Case in point.
Did you notice there was a second paragraph to my post, or did you simply respond to the non-informative section in order to belittle the remaining content?
Which was my case in point. Your second paragraph wasn't a coherent statement.
Seran
03-25-2006, 11:38 AM
Exactly why it's stupid to reply to any of your posts, you're a douche.
HarmNone
03-25-2006, 11:59 AM
Ahh, the blissful dawning of realization. :lol:
Sean of the Thread
03-25-2006, 12:24 PM
Exactly why it's stupid to reply to any of your posts, you're a douche.
A correct douche.
Sean of the Thread
03-25-2006, 12:27 PM
Ahh, the blissful dawning of realization. :lol:
You're off topic. Stick to the kiddie pool threads if want to be able to contribute anything other than your henny rehetoric.
HarmNone
03-25-2006, 12:49 PM
Heh. When we need you to moderate the boards, Xyelin, I'm sure Kranar will let you know. Until then, considering the number of off-topic posts with which you grace us on a daily basis, I'm not going to worry about it much. I'll just post where I like.
Sean of the Thread
03-25-2006, 02:06 PM
Heh. When we need you to moderate the boards, Xyelin, I'm sure Kranar will let you know. Until then, considering the number of off-topic posts with which you grace us on a daily basis, I'm not going to worry about it much. I'll just post where I like.
Another fine example of moderating excellence! Since my posts are rarely off-topic I'll be sure to grace you with a few more since you seem bored.
If the American President lied to Congress, the UN and the American people in order to drag us into a war that has cost us $250 Billion and killed countless American and Iraqi lives then there is nothing laughable about this thread.
The Congress impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job certainly this is infinitely more important than a blow job
Parkbandit
03-28-2006, 07:18 PM
My 2 year offer still stands. Please, anyone, show me concrete proof that you have had your freedom infringed upon.
Show me. Prove your point.
Democrats in Vermont to Weigh Impeachment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801626.html)
MONTPELIER, Vt. -- Leading Democrats in Vermont plan to decide in April whether to urge state lawmakers to petition for President Bush's impeachment using a little-known provision in the rules of the U.S. House.
Democratic committees in at least half of the state's 14 counties have passed resolutions calling for impeachment, citing a rule in "Jefferson's Manual," a book of parliamentary guidelines written by Thomas Jefferson that supplements U.S. House rules.
The anti-Bush movement is "genuinely bubbling up from the grass roots," said Jon Copans, the state party's executive director.
My 2 year offer still stands. Please, anyone, show me concrete proof that you have had your freedom infringed upon.
Show me. Prove your point.
Maher Arar.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
Valthissa
03-29-2006, 05:40 PM
Democrats in Vermont to Weigh Impeachment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801626.html)
I really hope they (Democrats in general) don't do this.
I think that the Republicans really need to be punished for poor governance. If we didn't have such a poor system for drawing districts we would certainly get a massive change in the House and Senate this year.
All the Democrats have to do is run candidates whos can say "I'm not a Republican" and they can probably win back the House.
Over reaching with impeachment lunacy (or some other silliness) may be the only way they can lose this fall.
C/Valth - lover of divided government
Sean of the Thread
03-29-2006, 10:21 PM
>>I think that the Republicans really need to be punished for poor governance. If we didn't have such a poor system for drawing districts we would certainly get a massive change in the House and Senate this year.<<
And the republicans are the only ones providing poor governance of course.
>>All the Democrats have to do is run candidates whos can say "I'm not a Republican" and they can probably win back the House.<<
Extremely unlikely. To be fair I think at this point there are extremly limited options on both sides for nomination.
>>Over reaching with impeachment lunacy (or some other silliness) may be the only way they can lose this fall.<<
Yes on the lunacy and no that isn't they only way they can lose. They are gonna have a battle no doubt. Nomination Hilary for example would crush their hopes from get go.
>>C/Valth - lover of divided government<<
As opposed to a government without checks and balances.
Warriorbird
03-30-2006, 02:07 AM
"And the republicans are the only ones providing poor governance of course."
Yes, actually. They control everything.
"As opposed to a government without checks and balances."
Precisely what we have now.
Sean of the Thread
03-30-2006, 02:21 AM
"And the republicans are the only ones providing poor governance of course."
Yes, actually. They control everything.
"As opposed to a government without checks and balances."
Precisely what we have now.
You're quickly earning blacklash status.
Just because I am vocal in my opinions it makes me crazy according to certain other vocal people.
My opinions would not mean shit to people who didn't take them seriously.
Sean of the Thread
03-30-2006, 02:32 AM
My opinions would not mean shit to people who didn't take them seriously.
Nobody takes you seriously therefore your opinions don't mean shit.
I guess thats why you feel the need to post about how I am wrong.
Sean of the Thread
03-30-2006, 02:36 AM
I guess thats why you feel the need to post about how I am wrong.
You're the only one that believes the shit you spew. I just like to be the first to give you shit over it. You're cheap entertainment for me.
You're the only one that believes the shit you spew. I just like to be the first to give you shit over it. You're cheap entertainment for me.
Well, I do try to be at least entertaining. But I think you are dead wrong about me being the only one to believe what I post. In fact, I know you are dead wrong.
Until you post some evidence that proves your claim, you are talking our of your ass. As usual I might add.
Alfster
03-30-2006, 05:58 AM
Well, I do try to be at least entertaining. But I think you are dead wrong about me being the only one to believe what I post. In fact, I know you are dead wrong.
Until you post some evidence that proves your claim, you are talking our of your ass. As usual I might add.
Dude, pigs don't count as people...remember that.
And as far you trying to be entertaining, people laugh at you. Not with you.
Parkbandit
03-30-2006, 07:44 AM
Maher Arar.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
Clearly I confused you with "you have had your freedom infringed upon."
My apologies for using the big words.
Parkbandit
03-30-2006, 07:46 AM
My opinions mean shit to people.
Finally.. I agree with you.
ElanthianSiren
03-30-2006, 08:56 AM
So since none of us had our constitutional right to vote overlooked in 2000, we can just do away with that new provisional ballot system? Ergo, we can just toss out the entire system made to ensure that such an oversight (as the 50,000 eligable votes ignored in FL in 2000) does not occur again? After all, it didn't impact our lives at all. Or did it? Shortsightedness in things like government results in disasters like the last FEMA debacle.
-M
edited for clarity
Tromp
03-30-2006, 09:02 AM
I'd say lets just make it sure Katherine Harris (Queen Salad Tosser) doesn't get into the Senate. It would just give me no hope in the voting process if she did.
Sean of the Thread
03-30-2006, 10:20 AM
So since none of us had our constitutional right to vote overlooked in 2000, we can just do away with that new provisional ballot system? Ergo, we can just toss out the entire system made to ensure that such an oversight (as the 50,000 eligable votes ignored in FL in 2000) does not occur again? After all, it didn't impact our lives at all. Or did it? Shortsightedness in things like government results in disasters like the last FEMA debacle.
-M
edited for clarity
They were not eligible votes because they voted incorrectly when the instructions are clear as fucking day.
Disaster like the last FEMA debacle could have been hugely diminished if Ray Nagin didn't have his head crammed up his ass.
Sean of the Thread
03-30-2006, 10:22 AM
I'd say lets just make it sure Katherine Harris (Queen Salad Tosser) doesn't get into the Senate. It would just give me no hope in the voting process if she did.
I just heard on the radio she is on the record saying "God made me run for the senate.. he told me it is my calling" or some such crap. People are running from her dumbass as quickly as possible.
ElanthianSiren
03-30-2006, 10:40 AM
They were not eligible votes because they voted incorrectly when the instructions are clear as fucking day.
Disaster like the last FEMA debacle could have been hugely diminished if Ray Nagin didn't have his head crammed up his ass.
Incorrect -- they were improperly marked as felons and PERMITTED from voting.
-M
Incorrect -- they were improperly marked as felons and PERMITTED from voting.
-M
Every voting list has errors on it, was Florida's error rate greater than average?
Clearly I confused you with "you have had your freedom infringed upon."
My apologies for using the big words.
I appreciate the protectiveness that you are only concerned about the freedoms of members of this board. However people have had their freedoms tread upon. The Patriot Act removes civil rights that were enshrined in the Magna Carta almost 800 years ago.
.....and how do you know I am not Maher Arar?
Sean of the Thread
03-31-2006, 12:14 PM
Every voting list has errors on it, was Florida's error rate greater than average?
50,000 would be something like 1 percent. The problem here with that felon list is with Florida being such a melting pot destination they were trying to coordinate the list scrub with all the other states. The system was truly fucked but not exactly sure how they could have done any better dealing with so many standards and such.
When it was all said and done the number that were incorrectly turned away from the polls was a tiny fraction.. probally because only the law abiding citizens actually showed up to the poll to be turned away.
Latrinsorm
03-31-2006, 02:11 PM
The Patriot Act removes civil rights that were enshrined in the Magna Carta almost 800 years ago.Wow, really? Any English barons showing up in the US better watch their step.
Tromp
03-31-2006, 03:07 PM
One person with the legal right to vote being turned away is just as much of a crime as 50K. The party likely to benefit from a portion of the felon population not voting won. The margin of victory was extremely close. One can only expect some bitterness.
Anyone besides me watch 'Unprecidented: the 2000 Presidential Election' documentary? Thought provoking no matter what side of the coin you are on.
Wow, really? Any English barons showing up in the US better watch their step.
As I am sure you know American law is rooted in and derived from English Common law.
Watch Neil Young Explain Why Bush Needs To Be Impeached... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/21/watch-neil-young-explain-_n_19560.html)
Stanley Burrell
04-21-2006, 05:30 PM
Watch Neil Young Explain Why Bush Needs To Be Impeached... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/21/watch-neil-young-explain-_n_19560.html)
::waits for the Lynyrd Skynyrd rebuttal::
Sean of the Thread
04-21-2006, 06:29 PM
lol that was the FIRST thing that came to mind for me as well.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.